Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 3, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PDT

3:30 pm
3:31 pm
3:32 pm
3:33 pm
3:34 pm
3:35 pm
3:36 pm
3:37 pm
3:38 pm
3:39 pm
3:40 pm
3:41 pm
3:42 pm
>> i am encouraged by my memory of the attempt to install only one antenna on the church on 16th street near guerrero some time ago. and due to a big public outcry i imagine that was not done. it was not approved. in this particular case they plan to put up nine antenna's so that's nine times worse. i hope that you all -- even though i seem to be alone here, i hope that you will decide on a continuance for number 10 as well. i would greatly appreciate it. thank you.
3:43 pm
>> thank you. is there any additional public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >> approved. >> on that motion to approve -- >> commissioner miguel? >> aye, >> and commissioner olague? >> aye. >> you are now on item 11. at 324 hugo street request for discretionary review. this is an abbreviated discretionary review. >> good afternoon, sarah, department statute. it's a building permit for a three-story horizontal edition and a two-story horizontal permitted property.
3:44 pm
the plans were approved by the public after the notice expired. the project was then put on hold by the sponsor. in 2010 the sponsor reinitiated the project and made operations that required a second session three notice. a question of d.r. was submitted by a group of neighbors. the three-story horizontal edition, a two-story horizontal edition, both stories have a five-foot setback. they want a small horizontal -- and add a horizontal addition to the east of the three-story edition. the revisions that the sponsor is suggesting have not been submitted to the department as a formal revision. the department supports the
3:45 pm
project as proposed with a three-story edition, the two-story permits b -- obstruction and the five-foot setback. with regard to the proposed revision, the department supports the reduction of the permits obstruction to one story but is not generally in support of the new horizontal addition to the east. with that, the department recommends the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as submitted. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. d.r. questioner. -- d.r. requester. >> good afternoon, my name is john he is ler. i'm the owner of 12394th avenue, together with my family, members of which occupy both units of the property. thank you for the opportunity
3:46 pm
to speak in support of this request for discretionary review. first of all, i appreciate the effort and expense that the developer has undertaken to modify the original proposal. no one would dispute that some of the changes they have proposed are marginal improvements from the standpoint of surrounding properties. i assume that the planning department, i just learned that the planning department, having been granted an approval for the original proposal will in all likelihood go forward with the plan as now revised but none of these facts change the basis of our original appeal. i'd like to make three quick points. in recommending that the commission not take d.r., the planning department has in our view not given adequate consideration to the extent that the proposed development would encroach on the mid block
3:47 pm
space. it will extend into that space well beyond any structure on the block, will obstruct the neighborhood's character and will set a precedent for erosion. a single building out of context with its surroundings can be disruptive of the neighborhood characterer and if repeated often enough to the image of the city as a whole, end quote. if they can be granted once why not again and again and again? second, we believe that adequate consideration has not been taken as to how the proposed development as an out of scale rear yard edition will leave the our property but adjacent properties feeling "boxed in and cut off from the
3:48 pm
mid block open space." we have submitted a photo of the structure taken from the rear window of 1241, our property showing current access to the mid block open space. side by side on that photo which has been imposed of the original proposed structure. even when permitted by the planning code, building expansions into the rear yard may not be appropriate if they are uncharact ristically deep or tall depending on the context of the other buildings that define the mid block open space. an out of scale mid yard addition can leave residents feeling boxed in and cut off from the mid block open space. that's how we will feel. thirdly we believe that stated in our request for d.r. that adequate consideration has not been taken as to how to propose development as the key lot on
3:49 pm
this block excessively affects five contiguous houses on the block. we think it property for you to review its policy regarding what it has acknowledged to be an authority issue, namely the issue of key lots which is heretofor not resolved. thank you. >> thank you, other speakers in support of the d.r. requester? would anyone like to speak in regards to the d.r. requester? >> my name is david groover and i own a property that is in line with john's and will be affected by the proposed development. and i just want to concur with his statements that again, we were actually after the big picture that this is a key lot
3:50 pm
and what is about to be built there is going to impact and could create or will create a kind of a domino effect for the rest of the block. and i think it's time that the commission steps in and develops a policy for these types of issues. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, mary o'connor, i own the building at 1235, 1237 12th avenue. i'm obviously in communion with the people that have just spoken that it will certainly affect the character of the neighborhood. it's a building that infrigs upon the open spathe -- space. it affects our light, everything about it. it's excessively big. it's going from a single family dwelling with two huge units
3:51 pm
with 4 1/2 boss each which is a lot of boss. if welessen the building even more it would impact us even less. and if you do decide to approve it, we ask that you also give a notice of special restrictions limiting it to two units because of the number of bathrooms and things. thank you. >> additional speaker in support of the d.r. requester? >> hell oh, my name is brighty newman. i live at 1237 a 4th avenue. i am on the ground floor unit. i have lived there for 15 years. the light that comes into my apartment all comes in through
3:52 pm
the back. and as it's a ground floor unit, that lighting is extremely precious to us. we don't have very much light. so a main concern i have -- i was a little bit puzzled about if you are approving the project, if the recommendation is to approve which drawing there -- there have been so many drawings. and the most recent accommodation that was suggested was to build three stories and then one rather than three stories and then two . and i understood sarah to say that -- that she was in support of that. but it was confusing to me just which drawing she was in support of. i'm in support of one that -- that keeps the -- what is built to a minimum.
3:53 pm
there are -- i'd like to say 12 people who are very, very much affected in their every day lives by anything built out in that lot. thank you. >> thank you. are there any additional speakers in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioner, jeremy paul for the project sponsor. i'd like to thank sarah velve for her efforts in this matter. we've worked very closely. with these neighbors. i have tried to achieve the goals of the tong family and still -- and mitigate as many
3:54 pm
of the concerns as possible. we've submitted to you sets of plans shows what had been approved by city planning back in 2006 fold by the set that is that's currently subject to review, recommending approval. additionally, we have come up with another plan that drops the rear extension, rear yard obstruction down to a single story and then makes up for some of the lost space with a 2 1/2 foot extension into what is essentially a five-foot space between the buildings. i'm going to go to the overhead if i could and show you some pictures of the sight.
3:55 pm
if we can go to the overhead please. so this is the sight and it is a small single family. we're adding a second dwelling unit and getting significantly more living space. this is a perspective rendering of what is before you with the section 311. we're asking you to take discretionary review and aloy us to proceed with that project as i've shown you here. with a slight 2 1/2 foot projection into the five-foot yard keeping that rear yard obstruction all the way back. this gives you a prospective of how these buildings relate to one another. we are not creating a new precedent as far as intrusion into mid block open space. i'm going to skip this in the interest of time.
3:56 pm
you're very familiar with the discretionary review criteria and the need for increased density and the limitations of the code. but this -- i wanted to show you so you could understand the way light reaches the adjacent properties. mr. he is ler's property is the one, not the one large property building next to the subject property but the small one nestled in next to it. it does not get direct sunlight at any time of the year that i've been able to trace much more than this. this was the time that i visited that i was able to get the most light on it. brighty newman, you see where the wooden stairs is, her unit is at the back of that unit, the garden unit. this is the morning shot. you can see the reflections of the sunlight on the roofs on the other side of the block.
3:57 pm
the only sunlight that -- that comes in -- in the summer and spring of the year comes in the afternoon and midday and afternoon. and i don't believe that we're going to create any new obstruction at that point. there is a large building on 5th directly behind us which is known as the sweepstakes building. some of you may know of it was sweepstakes home in san francisco that is quite large. i'm going to go drop the overhead and go back to the camera, please. so i would suggest that we have a good plan as proposed with section 311. we are complying with the residential design guidelines. what we propose to do with this
3:58 pm
side setback at this point, i think, honors the interest of these properties as much as possible. it's clear that mr. hesler's property is going to be affected by anything that happens here. our existing building is projecting to this point. so this addition that we're doing here is not going to have a significant additional impact there. i'm ready to answer any questions or show you more drawings that you might have. thank you very much. >> thank you. speakers in support of the project sponsor? seeing none -- public comments is closed. not public comment but now we go to the d.r. requester who has two minutes of rebutal time. not 10, two minutes. everyone leapt on me.
3:59 pm
>> i was elected to speak. i don't have any tests available. >> i'm sorry, excuse me, could you state your name for the record. >> my name is bridey newman. by the way it's b-r-i-d-e-y. my bedroom is at the back. in winter, it's you know, relatively poor. probably around 2:00 in the afternoon is when we start getting the sun. in summer it's considerably better. my daughter and i have been fond of setting out a picnic in the backyard so that we could sit in the sun and eat our breakfast, late breakfast 11:30 maybe, noon in the summertime. i do a lot of handwork and i can no longer see it without


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on